| 2025-12-19 | UPC_CFI_681/2024 | Munich LD | Counterclaim for revocation | Revocation merits | Not infringed | The Munich Local Division dismissed both the infringement action (UPC_CFI_437/2024) brought by GXD-Bio Corporation and the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_681/2024) brought by the Myriad defendants, concerning EP 3 346 403 (a patent on data processing/gene expression analysis for identifying endogenous reference genes). The Court found no infringement because the accused products (Myriad test kits) did not use the claimed three-step normalization method — the products used a single-step average normalization that differed from the patented calculation method. The counterclaim for revocation was also dismissed, so the patent was maintained. Each party bears its own costs, with costs capped at EUR 600,000 total. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_22758/2025 | Court of Appeal | Application Rop 265 | Procedural | Withdrawn | The Court of Appeal permitted NanoString Technologies Europe Limited's withdrawal of the revocation action (UPC_CoA_808/2024 / ACT_551180/2023 / UPC_CFI_252/2023) against Harvard's EP 2 794 928, following NanoString's application filed on 14 May 2025. Harvard agreed to the withdrawal and did not oppose. The withdrawal was permitted as Harvard had no legitimate interest in the action being decided. No costs order was issued. The proceedings were declared closed. |
| 2025-05-28 | UPC_APP_24663/2025 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Costs | Costs only | The Court of Appeal issued an order granting Harvard's application for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid for the appeal (UPC_CoA_808/2024) following NanoString's withdrawal of the revocation action. Harvard had paid the appeal court fees as appellant; NanoString had withdrawn the underlying action on 14 May 2025 before closure of the written procedure. The Court ordered reimbursement of 60% of Harvard's appeal court fees under R. 370.9(b)(i) RoP. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | Order of the Court of Appeal dated 10 December 2024 setting aside the CFI order imposing penalty payments (Zwangsgelder) on NanoString for alleged violations of a preliminary injunction that had been previously revoked by the CoA. The CoA held that the revocation of a preliminary injunction under Art. 75(1) UPCA and R. 242.1 RoP is retroactive — the revoked order is treated as having never had legal effect. Consequently, any subsequent order imposing penalties based on the revoked injunction also lacks legal basis, even if it concerns alleged violations before the revocation. The CFI penalty order was set aside, 10x Genomics' applications were dismissed, 10x was ordered to bear all costs, and NanoString's payment made in compliance with the penalty order was to be reimbursed. |
| 2024-12-10 | UPC_CoA_470/2023 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.2 | — | outcomeName.other | The Court of Appeal revoked the Munich Local Division's order imposing penalty payments on NanoString for breach of a provisional injunction regarding EP 4 108 782, and rejected 10x's requests. The Court held that the Court of Appeal's earlier revocation (26 February 2024) of the provisional injunction order of 19 September 2023 had retroactive effect, meaning that the order was void ab initio and therefore could not serve as a valid legal basis for any penalty order, even for alleged breaches prior to the revocation. 10x was ordered to bear the costs of both instances and to reimburse the amount paid by NanoString. |
| 2024-11-28 | UPC_CoA_490/2024 | Court of Appeal | Appeal RoP220.1 | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal addressed the appeal against a provisional measures order, ruling on the appellant's classification as a micro-enterprise or small enterprise for the purposes of court fee reductions. The matter concerned a default decision and the appellant's failure to demonstrate eligibility for the reduced fee rate. |
| 2024-03-11 | ORD_12169/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic Order | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order correcting an error in headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order (26 February 2024) concerning the interpretation of patent claims in provisional measures proceedings between 10x Genomics/Harvard (applicants) and NanoString Technologies (respondents). The correction clarifies the principles for claim scope interpretation under Art. 69 EPC: the claim is the decisive basis (not merely a guideline); description and drawings are always used as explanatory aids; the claim is to be construed from the perspective of the skilled person; the aim is to combine appropriate protection with sufficient legal certainty. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | Procedural | Procedural only | The Court of Appeal of the UPC refused to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings despite NanoString's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US. The court held that even if the insolvency threshold under R. 311.1 RoP was met, no stay was warranted where the oral proceedings were already concluded and the case was ready for decision, balancing procedural economy and cost efficiency under Art. 41(3) UPCA. |
| 2024-02-26 | UPC_APP_6601/2024 | Court of Appeal | Generic application | motionName.appeal_decision | Procedural only | Court of Appeal order declining to stay the provisional measures appeal proceedings following NanoString's insolvency (Chapter 11 bankruptcy under US law). The Court held that under R. 311(1) RoP, proceedings need not be stayed when a party is declared insolvent after the close of oral argument if the case is ready for decision, as principles of procedural economy, cost-efficiency and a fair balance between party interests (Art. 41(3) UPCA) support proceeding to judgment. US Chapter 11 proceedings qualified as insolvency under the applicable lex fori concursus. |